Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Chand @ Chandram S/O Prithvisingh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:4010) on 29 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:4010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14166/2025
Chand @ Chandram S/o Prithvisingh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Mundanwas, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. (At
Present Confined In District Jail Gurugram).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14666/2025
Sube Singh S/o Shri Puran Singh, R/o Bar Gurjar, Police Station
Khedki Daula, District Gurugram (Haryana) At Present Lodged In
The Central Jail, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Yadav
Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
29/01/2026
1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been
filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in
connection with FIR No.150/2020 registered at Police Station
Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi (Raj.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 450 of IPC & Sections 3/25 &
5/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). After completion of
investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 12:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:08:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4010] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025]
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case.
Counsel submit that neither petitioners are named in the FIR nor
in the statement of witnesses. They submit that it is mentioned in
the FIR that injured witness namely Ramniwas can identify the
assailants but during the course of trial, he failed to identify the
accused persons. Counsel submit that as per the averments made
in the charge-sheet, petitioners were not present at the place of
the incident. It is submitted that similar situated co-accused
person namely Yashpal @ Sarpanch has been granted benefit of
regular bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-
Chand @ Chandram submits that on the basis of secret
information received from the informant, arrest of the petitioner
was made on 30.07.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody.
Arguing the case of petitioner-Sube Singh, counsel submits that
arrest of the petitioner has been made solely on the basis of police
interrogation of co-accused person namely Chand @ Chandram
but same cannot be used against the petitioner as same is hit by
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that
except police interrogation of the co-accused-Chand @ Chandram,
no other evidence is available on record. Petitioner is in custody
since 25.02.2023 and as such he has suffered incarceration of
almost three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly
submits that petitioners are ready to abide all the conditions which
may be imposed upon them by this Court. Trial of the case will
take considerable time as till date only 20 prosecution witnesses
have been examined out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 12:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:08:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4010] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025]
Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that petitioners are
habitual offenders as 31 other cases have been registered against
the petitioner-Sube Singh and 18 other cases have been
registered against the petitioner-Chand @ Chandram, therefore,
looking to the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, bail should
not be granted to them.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
mere registration of other cases cannot be a sole ground to refuse
the bail application of the petitioners and the Court is required to
consider the specific role attributed to the accused petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioner-Chand @ Chandram submits that in four
cases petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, especially considering the material
available on record and the fact that petitioners were not present
at the place of incident and sole injured witness namely Ramniwas
has not identified the assailants during the course of trial, so also
considering the fact that co-accused person namely Yashpal @
Sarpanch has been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court
relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab & Anr.
arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 12:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:08:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4010] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025]
No(s).8523/2024 and trial of the case will take considerable
time in its conclusion as till date only 20 witnesses have been
examined out of cited 30 prosecution witnesses as well as looking
to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail
applications.
7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Chand @ Chandram S/o
Prithvisingh & 2) Sube Singh S/o Shri Puran Singh shall be
released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and
any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent
dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, it is
made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any
other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark
their presence in first and third weeks of every month in the
concerned police station.
9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners
in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their
presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the
concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the
concerned Court in this regard.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 12:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:08:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:4010] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025]
10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the
notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial
court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.
11. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned
SHO for necessary compliance.
12. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the
instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial
of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /11-12
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 12:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:08:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
